KARATTU SHOUKATHALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala partly affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Court whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 364, 376, 377 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). He has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 364 and 379 of the IPC by the High Court and acquitted for commission of offence under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 11.08.1996, the deceased left her house at 8.00 a.m. in the company of the accused. Thereafter, she did not come back in the evening. A. Alavi, PW -1, father of the deceased, started enquiring about her whereabouts. Vasu, PW -3, informed him that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused in the morning. Haridas, PW -2 also informed that he had seen deceased in the company of accused in the forest. First Information Report was lodged by A. Alavi, PW -1. The Sub -Inspector recorded his statement at 2.00 a.m. on 12.08.1996 and the offence was registered. The prosecution had examined as many as 15 witnesses. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the chain of circumstances to fasten the guilt upon the appellant is complete. They have found that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, body had been recovered at the instance of the accused, the shirt fibre of the accused was found on the person of the deceased. Besides that, there was recovery of gold ornaments and purse of the deceased from the house of Shajahan, brother -in -law of the accused.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the chain of circumstances is not complete. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. Paragraphs 151 to 153 of the said judgment read as follows.